🔗 Share this article

For decades, “stopping climate change” has been the singular aim of climate policy. Across the ideological range, from grassroots climate activists to senior UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to avert future catastrophe has been the guiding principle of climate policies.

Yet climate change has materialized and its tangible effects are already being experienced. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on preventing future catastrophes. It must now also include conflicts over how society manages climate impacts already transforming economic and social life. Coverage systems, residential sectors, hydrological and territorial policies, employment sectors, and regional commerce – all will need to be radically remade as we adjust to a transformed and growing unstable climate.

Environmental vs. Governmental Impacts

To date, climate adaptation has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, enhancing flood control systems, and adapting buildings for harsh meteorological conditions. But this structural framing ignores questions about the systems that will shape how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Do we enable property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Is it right to uphold disaster aid systems that only protect property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Do we leave workers laboring in extreme heat to their employers’ whims, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not imaginary. In the United States alone, a spike in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond high-risk markets in Florida and California – indicates that climate endangers to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers threatened a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to install air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at unprecedented levels – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration paid Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to reduce their water usage. How we respond to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will embed completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the purview of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a specialist concern for professionals and designers rather than authentic societal debate.

From Technocratic Models

Climate politics has already moved beyond technocratic frameworks when it comes to carbon cutting. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol embodied the dominant belief that commercial systems would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus shifted to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became genuinely political. Recent years have seen countless political battles, covering the sustainable business of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the progressive economics of the Green New Deal to debates over lithium nationalization in Bolivia and coal phase-out compensation in Germany. These are conflicts about values and negotiating between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate migrated from the realm of technocratic elites to more familiar domains of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the ideologically forward agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that rent freezes, comprehensive family support and subsidized mobility will prevent New Yorkers from moving for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an emissions reductions framework. A truly comprehensive climate politics would apply this same societal vision to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to stop future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already transforming everyday life.

Beyond Apocalyptic Narratives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the apocalyptic framing that has long prevailed climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an all-powerful force that will entirely overwhelm human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something utterly new, but as known issues made worse: more people forced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers obliged to work during heatwaves, more local industries destroyed after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a distinct technical challenge, then, but rather part of ongoing political struggles.

Emerging Policy Debates

The terrain of this struggle is beginning to take shape. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to make vulnerable homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in vulnerable regions like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide comprehensive public disaster insurance. The divergence is stark: one approach uses cost indicators to encourage people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through market pressure – while the other commits public resources that permit them to continue living safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain rare in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be neglected. But the sole concentration on preventing climate catastrophe obscures a more present truth: climate change is already reshaping our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and what ideology will triumph.